AuthorTopic: Pete Best (Read 37971 times)

In reply to Jane, yes Haymans Green is a great CD. I've gave it to some freinds without saying who the band was. they loved the whoile CD...and lved it even more, and listened closer to lyrics and evrything when i told them it was biographical and recorded by PBB. Several tracks have made it into regular rotation on beatlesradio.com, and they'lll also play tracks on request.

Hey folks...the below is reprinted here in full, with full permission from Dave Bedford, the author of the soon-to-be published ":Liddypool: birthplace of the beatles".

I've seen the full book, and it's dynamite..including a 27-person geneology of the musicians that came and went through the group that eventually morphed into The Beatles.

Below is the chapter on The Sacking of Pete Best. Co-incidentally, Pete wrote the foreward for the book as well. You can see a lot of the info on www.liddypool.com, including some fun little quizzes for those that thnk they have a real good handle on the history of the early beatles and their liverpool.

So, i'm no expert...and perhaps other members here, including bill harry, would have some keen opinion on the rationale of the author's August '62 dismissal theory. In retrospect, it seems to make a heck of a lot of sense, especially for a young band that wasn't sure if they'd make it or not, after being turned down by everyone, and eppy agreeing to a very small 1p per single contract...

My apologies for the length of the post...however, I thnk this forum will appreciate and enjoy the sneak peak. the only other place this is posted is on petebest.com and another private newsgroup.--------------

Many theories abound regarding the controversial sacking of PeteBest as The Beatles were on the threshold of stardom. Pete wasnever told the reason why by anyone in the group and will probablynever get a straight answer in his lifetime.Some of the most commonly quoted reasons are his refusal to geta Beatle haircut or that he was a poor drummer. It’s also been saidthat he was anti-social and a non-conformist. There is no definitiveanswer, so all that can be done is to narrow down the possibilities.John, Paul and George all knew Pete from The Casbah and kepta watchful eye on him, particularly in the weeks prior to leaving forHamburg. They had become friends during the previous year beforehe joined them. Pete was not unknown.The Beatles enjoyed moderate success from August 1960 to August1962. They refined their act and repertoire in Hamburg and Liverpoolbefore Epstein “cleaned” them up and secured the record deal in June 1962 that wouldlaunch them to stardom. This was all gained with Pete’s help, but he wouldn’t be therewith them when they broke through. Instead, Ringo Starr was drafted in at the lastminute to join their wild roller-coaster ride to fame.Pete remembered that fateful day he received the life-changing news. “Epstein sawme the night before and said that he wanted to see me in the morning, which was notunusual. However, when I arrived there Epstein was agitated and I knew something waswrong. Finally he came out with it: ‘I don’t know how to tell you this, Pete, but the boyswant you out and Ringo is joining them on Saturday’. Epstein by this time was almostin tears”.Pete left Epstein’s office and went home to tell Mo. He just told her, “They kicked me outof The Beatles”, and broke down.They had been so close in Hamburg, living, eating, and playing together. Pete shared aroom with Paul, spent the night in the cells with him and they were deported together.They grew up together in Hamburg, as John once said. However, there were supposedlyrumblings of discontent from John, Paul and George about Pete. When the band wasoffered the EMI recording contract as John, Paul, George and Pete, George Martin hadquestioned Pete’s drumming, and suddenly, he was out.Subsequently, Ringo Starr didn’t pass the audition either, and session drummer AndyWhite was brought in to drum on three songs. So neither Pete nor Ringo were the idealsolution at that moment. It doesn’t mean that either of them were bad drummers, butunderscores that Pete’s dismissal wasn’t down to drumming ability alone. Ringo hadthe same problem. They were ‘live’ drummers used to playing in big halls and concertvenues. Drumming for a record is a different skill altogether, which Ringo was given theopportunity to develop with The Beatles. His style was different. “Drummers were askedto play like me”, Ringo said when talking about his style. “I’m naturally left-handed, butdrum right-handed. I was born left-handed, but my grandmother believed that was awitch’s spell and she made me write right-handed”. He eventually became one of theworld’s most skilled drummers.If the EMI recordings from June are the only evidence on which to judge Pete’s drumming,it is possible to understand the decision to replace him. But then, on that evidence,would you have signed The Beatles as a group?However, listen to “My Bonnie” and the recordings that Pete and The Beatles made withTony Sheridan as The Beat Brothers. His drumming is steady, much brighter and livelierthan the sessions at Decca or EMI. Does the way it was recorded make a difference?This is where it can get technical, so I enlisted the help of Don Dorsey, a recordingengineer who has worked in Abbey Road.He discussed with me the differences between drummingin a live band and in a recording studio.“A recording studio environment is quite different to a live environment”, Dorseyexplained. “In a live hall all band members are relatively close together and all their sound output mixes in the environment—the drummer hears everything.In a recording studio it would be customary for the drummer tobe separated from the rest of the band with a large wall-likesound baffle.“The purpose of baffles is to keep sounds from one player intrudingtoo much into the microphones of the others. As a result, to hearother band members well, headphones must be used and the soundwould be nothing like a live appearance. If the large wall baffles wereused, visual clues for the drummer would also be restricted becausethe baffles have only small windows. If the drummer could nothear things as he was used to he might therefore play differently.For example, he might play more softly to attempt to hear better orhe might lag behind the beat.“Even if baffles weren’t used, the set-up would be unusual to them.In a studio you don’t hear things the same way you do in a liveenvironment—you’re restricted by the technical needs to have someisolation between microphones.“I don’t think any of this would be an issue from an engineer’s pointof view because engineers just set up microphones and madeeverything that was happening in the room sound as good aspossible. From a producer’s viewpoint though, everything must goquickly, easily and smoothly. Working with an unknown drummerwould probably cause any producer who knew an experienceddrummer to choose the latter just so the project could be completedwith ease.“It’s hard to know what people were thinking forty-five years ago, butmy best guess is a cultural one. Perhaps the most relevant factor atthat time may have been a prevailing attitude that ‘drums all soundthe same in the studio, so why not change drummers if it makesproduction easier, quicker or cheaper?’ It wasn’t until years later thatdrummers had clearly established that they truly had unique sounds,playing styles and personalities that made a difference to the soundof a band. For me it’s easy to imagine how Pete or Ringo wereconsidered ‘just the drummer’ and not the ‘sound’ of the band, whichwould be predominantly from the vocals (and guitars, as far as anyone knew). In thosedays it was the song and the singers that were considered the real meat of a record.“To a producer, the term ‘session drummer’ means ‘I know he can and will do the jobbecause he’s done it before’. When The Beatles were trying to break into the recordingworld, the drummer was probably generally seen as ‘the weakest link’. Goodbye.After reading Dorsey’s technical insight it is no surprise that EMI, with a limited budgetand studio time available, opted for a session drummer. Ringo was a mate who hadsat in with The Beatles when Pete wasn’t available. That only happened on a coupleof occasions and was not a regular occurrence as some have made out. On oneoccasion, Pete had a virus, and so on 5 February 1962 Ringo sat in with The Beatles.There were no repeated absences on Pete’s part. Local bands routinely swapped andborrowed players. It was not unusual at all.Merseybeat drummers are split on who was the better of the two.I spoke to Mike Rice, who was a drummer with Liverpool band The Senatorsin the sixties. I asked him for an impartial view on Pete and Ringo.“They were both good drummers, and personally I preferred Pete to Ringo, but therewasn’t much between them. As a drummer, he was all right for The Beatles, but I’veseen better drummers.“I liked Pete’s style of drumming. He does what I believe drummers should do andthat is keeping a good rhythm, a strong beat, without too much fancy work. I alwaysfound that if a drummer is too fancy, it clouds the music. (This too was Ringo’sstated philosophy on drumming.) Some drummers over the years look for every littlespace, and then they’ll throw in some extra drum rolls or something and it spoils it.Ringo does it well, even if he was tempted at times. Drumming is very much down toopinion. Some people think I’m good, others don’t. It’s a matter of opinion”.Rice, like most musicians, watched the drumming styles of all the bands. He couldsee and hear things that others couldn’t.“Pete was always one of my favourites. He was dynamic with the sound he waspunching out. People tried to analyse it. It was the bass drum that stood out—theatom beat—but there was so much more to it than that. He could use his snare andput a variety in the beat, not just the straight 4/4 atom beat. At a gig we were playing,Pete was also on the bill, though not with The Beatles. I’d seen him lots of times atThe Cavern and other places. He was on before us, and I liked his drumming”.Rice shot down the notion that Pete was sacked because he wasn’ta good enough drummer.“I’d say it was wrong. I reckon it was jealousy from the other Beatles. He had a goodfollowing from the fans even though he was at the back. He was a fantastic drummer.I watched drummers all the time. You listened for the sound and knew which drumsand cymbals he was hitting without watching, and he was drumming right. You canhave a drummer who is great on a set of drums, even playing simply, and it soundsright. Then you can get an average drummer on the same kit and it is completelydifferent. I can tell. If you get it wrong it is very noticeable.“Ringo, in my opinion, was the safe option, not as good looking, and would notdominate the sound like Pete did. Maybe that was the problem. Take John, Paul orGeorge out of The Beatles and you have no Beatles. Each contribution was significantto the sound. Take Ringo or Pete out and the music and song writing would not have been much different, especially at the beginning of their recordingcareer, and you would still have The Beatles. Ringo had such agreat attitude and was a good drummer. He had the least ego anddid a good job, so I’m not knocking him. He was—and still is—a great drummer”.Regardless of whom was better, the only fact that mattered wasthat George Martin sought to bring in another drummer at theSeptember 1962 EMI session and Pete’s card was marked.Another reason given for Pete’s dismissal was that he didn’t fit in withthe rest of the group. This is one that only John, Paul and Georgecould answer, so we’ll never truly know. If it was a problem, whowould this most affect? John Winston Lennon, whose devil-may-careattitude made him judge, jury and hangman in one. John could beruthless at times. He had learned to fight with his mouth from anearly age and had slayed many a foe with his sharp tongue. Manycrumbled under his tirade of abuse, yet Pete was closer to John thanto any of the others. If there was such a clash or problem with hisbackground or personality, it never openly surfaced.The only two of the six Beatles who weren’t Scousers were Stuart—who was from Edinburgh in Scotland, with Scottish parents—andPete who was born in India with a father from Liverpool, but hismother grew up in India. Did it make a difference? Maybe what hedidn’t know was that unless you had that ingrained working class“scouse” mentality, you would never survive in The Beatles.In March 1966, John Lennon gave an interview in which he claimedthat The Beatles were “more popular than Jesus”. By the time theUS press and radio stations had whipped up a furore, Lennon hadreceived death threats and their US tour was in doubt. The reactionfrom fans forced the band to close ranks and brought them closertogether. Ringo, as a Scouser, could understand their mentality andknew what it took to break into this close-knit group. Once in, the FabFour were impenetrable. Even so, he said in The Beatles Anthologythat it took years to feel part of the group. He also said, “I had tojoin them as people, as well as a drummer”. His natural Scouse witand sense of humour won him many admirers, particularly on theU.S. tours.There was a suggestion that Pete was moody. Bob Woolerdescribed Pete as “mean, moody and magnificent” and many havetaken this the wrong way. Wooler intimated that Pete reminded himof a film star, with those “bedroom eyes” and film-star good looks.Girls swooned when they saw him, while men conceded Pete wasa good-looking guy.Because of his effect on the opposite sex, many have said that Pete’snatural good looks made the other Beatles jealous. This feeling alsowasn’t helped when Bob Wooler introduced The Beatles at TheCavern with: “It’s time for John, Paul, George and... Pete”, at whichpoint the screams reached an unbelievable crescendo. Ray Ennisof the Swinging Blue Jeans recalled on one occasion when Petewas singing “Matchbox” in The Cavern, that John, Paul and Georgewere asked to sit down on the edge of the stage by the female fansso that they could see Pete.For their gig at Litherland Town Hall on 7 August 1961, the newspaper advertisementproclaimed “Hear Pete Best sing tonight”. When Mersey Beat announced the recordingcontract had been secured, the congratulatory ad was accompanied by a photo ofPete on his own, not of the four Beatles.That their female admirers loved Pete, there is no doubt. But it wasn’t as if the othersdidn’t have their fair share of girls—there were more than enough to go round, so thistoo is unlikely as a reason on its own. Pete was an asset to the group; even GeorgeMartin commented that he didn’t see a need to change the physical line-up of thegroup. However, when you are dealing with young men, egos are involved and somany believe, as do I, that this would have been a factor.There are so many reasons but it comes down to John, Paul and George as the bandmembers who were responsible for Pete getting the axe. George Harrison stated hefelt most responsible for Pete’s sacking as he had campaigned hard for Ringo, whowas his friend. Paul had been involved in some arguments with Pete over his drummingand had taken to sometimes showing him how he wanted them played. Ironically, thatwas the very reason George left The Beatles when Paul tried to show him how to playhis guitar during the Let It Be sessions, and why Ringo walked out while recordingThe White Album.It wasn’t just Ringo who was approached to replace Pete as some have claimed.According to Spencer Leigh’s book, Drummed Out, John met former Quarrymen banjoplayer Rod Davis in March 1962. Davis told him that he had made a record and playedguitar, banjo, fiddle and other string instruments. John said, “You don’t play drums,do you? We need a drummer to head back to Hamburg”. Davis admitted it was hissecond bad career move! Dakota’s drummer Tony Mansfield recalled that Epstein alsoapproached the band’s manager, Rick Dixon, to ask about his availability.Then there’s the matter of musician Johnny “Hutch” Hutchinson. He was regardedas the best drummer in Liverpool and sat in for Pete before Ringo arrived, and surelywould have been the favourite. Bob Wooler told Epstein that Hutchinson wouldsuit The Beatles perfectly. Epstein asked Hutchinson, “What do you think, John?”Hutchinson responded without hesitation. “I wouldn’t join The Beatles for a gold clock.There’s only one group as far as I’m concerned and that’s The Big Three. The Beatlescouldn’t make a better sound than that and anyway, Pete was a very good friend ofmine and I couldn’t do the dirty on him like that, but why don’t you get Ringo? Ringo’sa bum—Ringo will join anybody for a few bob”. Hutchinson sat in with The Beatles between Pete’s departure andRingo joining. Bob Wooler noted that there was considerable frictionon stage between Hutchinson and Lennon. “The Beatles didn’t wanta drummer who would be a force to be reckoned with”, observedWooler, “hence, Johnny Hutch didn’t stand a chance”. Not onlydid Ringo have a different drumming style, he had a different, moreaffable personality than Pete, and has been described as beingmore charismatic. He wasn’t chosen for his looks but received sackfullsof mail from female fans anyway.In time Ringo became an integral member of The Beatles andin hindsight not many could say the decision was a wrong one.When they landed on the shores of America, he came into hisown and his quick wit and funny personality made him stand out.He has worked with some of the leading musicians in the industrywho rate him as one of the top drummers of all time. Ringo wasn’tan also-ran, a second-class drummer who they put up with. Hehad a great reputation and was there on merit. Those that knowabout the events of Pete’s sacking have either died or refuse to talk.Bob Wooler at one time supposedly threatened Epstein that hewould go to the press with the truth, but was talked out of it at thelast minute. We will probably never know exactly what happened,but as Spencer Leigh concludes, it was most likely a combinationof many elements.I am often asked for my opinion on Pete Best’s dismissal, so this ismy theory.Many authors create their theories from hindsight. They start atRingo and begin to make comparisons between him and Pete Best.Who was the better drummer? Who was the better looking? Whohad the better personality? Who fitted in best?However, I would like to start at a point before Ringo appears onthe scene. When Pete signed the recording contract as a memberof The Beatles, he was entitled to his equal cut of the profits. Yet, ifGeorge Martin was going to use a session drummer for the records,why should John, Paul and George give their drummer a quartershare of the proceeds when he wouldn’t even be playing?The money from the record sales would therefore be better cut threeways instead of four. That way, they could hire a session drummeron a fixed weekly rate instead of sharing a chunk of the profits,which weren’t expected to be great at this stage. Their royalty rateat the time was only one penny per record.When Ringo joined the group, he signed for £25 per week on aprobationary basis, not a quarter–share, full member of The Beatles.Peter Brown, who had worked closely with Brian Epstein since theirdays in NEMS in Liverpool was quoted as saying, “The terms werethat Ringo would be paid £25 per week for a probationary period,and if things worked out he would be made a member”.At that stage, the other three Beatles were taking £50 per week,plus they were due a share of the proceeds from their records andperformances.Consider what happened to Nigel Walley, The Quarrymen tea-chest bass player whobecame their first manager. It was Nigel, a childhood friend of John’s, who bookedtheir first proper gig at the local golf club and then got them into The Cavern forthe first time. He also made other bookings. However, once The Quarrymen hadbuilt up a following, it was Paul who suggested that Nigel’s managerial fee be cut offbecause he didn’t contribute. Likewise, Ken Brown was eased out of The Quarrymenat The Casbah over fifteen shillings (75 pence), because Ken didn’t play and soJohn, Paul and George demanded Ken’s share, to split it three ways instead of four.Allan Williams was the recipient of similar treatment. Williams procured bookings,drove the group personally to Hamburg and set them up. On The Beatles’ secondvisit to Hamburg, when they moved to another club, they dropped Williams and didnot pay him his usual commission because they arranged the booking themselves.In all three situations, it was a financial decision, with the non-contributing personeased out of the picture.Only on 20 June 1963—nearly a year after he joined them—when Beatles Ltd. wasset up did Ringo Starr become an equal member of the band. Even then he was on alesser share of The Beatles performances from concerts. Ringo eventually became afully-fledged Beatle and his performances as a drummer and a personality ultimatelymade him a very popular member. However, he spent nearly twelve months as asession drummer with The Beatles trying to earn his place in the band permanently.In my theory, Ringo doesn’t feature in the plan yet, because this was all about gettingrid of Pete from the band,as the other members didn’t feel that Pete should sharethe profits, because he wasn’t going to appear on the records. Once that decisionwas made, thoughts then turned to a replacement, who would be happy to jointhem on a fixed rate. The incentive for the replacement drummer was the record deal.Enter Ringo, a drummer they knew well, who happily signed up to the deal on offer.So my theory is that The Beatles got rid of Pete because they wanted to split the profitsfrom the records three ways instead of four, with the non-contributing person easedout. Pete was dismissed, like Ken Brown, Nigel Walley and Allan Williams, over money.The Beatles had played together for two years, with Pete as drummer. It was onlywhen George Martin told Brian that Pete wasn’t going to be playing on the records thatJohn, Paul and George acted, swiftly.It could be surmised that they weren’t sure how long fame would last, and they weredetermined to grab every penny while they could. History shows they had no problemsticking it to friends and associates with little or no remorse. If they were going to enjoymaybe six months of fame and fortune, they could split the profits three ways insteadof four, then pay Ringo a flat rate. If they became successful Ringo could join thempermanently. If fame eluded them, then John, Paul and George could at least split theirmeagre earnings three ways, instead of four.Whatever the main reason was, clearly several factors were taken into account andthat between them, John, Paul, George and Brian decided Pete had to go. Whenthere were suggestions from George Martin to bring in a session drummer, they didn’tthink twice about dropping Pete. As Allan Williams commented, “All groups areusers. They are ruthless”. Alistair Taylor once said that Pete was simply not a Beatle.John was even quoted as saying the same: “Pete Best was a great drummer butRingo was a Beatle”.

Pete was a Beatle for two years and played an important role in the formation ofthe band until August 1962. He was a vital cog of the band that took Hamburg andLiverpool by storm and secured a recording contract. What brought it to an end willprobably never be revealed, but his contribution nonetheless cannot be ignored.

You guys are welcome. My apologies that the text was all jammed together, but the actual text and chapter itself are very well laid out in the book. In fact, the whole book, all 300+ pages of it, are very well laid out. I have no tie to the book or anything, but I found had told the author of my regular activity on the petebest.com forum, so he offered to share the PB chapter from the book. Similarly, other key players have their own chapters too: ken brown, alan williams, alistair "raymand jones" taylor, others, lots of neat surprises.

The PB chapter was nothing new until the theory comes out of the blue...and you realize that the background and "evidence" has been out there in plain sight all along. A little detective work and, voila..auther said he had a bit of a eureka moment. Whether true or not remains to be seen someday. Author told me that that Pete himself also found the theory intriguing when the author presented it to him.

I'm glad the members here received it well; i know it was a long post. Ironically, the author and I were both at the Casbah Club 50th anniversary on August 29th but I didn't know of his book until later. FYI also there was duff lowe, ken brown, lee curtis, jackie lomax, etc. Great day.

spot on bobber. It's an intriguing and compelling theory, especialy in retrospect. For a band that wasn't sure if they'd make it, being turned down time after time, combined with a paltry 1p record contract (to be split 4 ways) the motivation for short term financial gain seems to make sense. If true, or close to true, it also seems to explain why it's been kept buried, and why so many other countless "reasons" and untruths (drumming ability, missing gigs, haircut, etc) have been out there for so long, all convenient decoys arising from pop culture mythology. Lennon's comment many years later describing that they were cowards when they sacked PB would also seem to be in line with this theory. The bigger the band got, and the more $ they made shortly after, this alleged financial reason (correction" THEORY") for dismissal looks like a crappy thing to do to someone, creating even more reason to keep it buried out of sight.

On the lighter side, the beatles organization and the late neil aspinall made it better later on, as described in 2003's "True Beginnings", by getting Pete royalties for 10 tracks on Anthology 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------Some more related fun: Macca fans might be pleasantly surprised to see the comments on this video about the Casbah Coffee club...the only place it's usually seen is at the Beatles Story in Liverpool or London. pb.com webmaster told us this was just posted up, so it's very new to the youtubeworld.www.myspace.com/thecasbahcoffeeclub

I saw a chapter in a book of little known general facts 2 years ago..it wasn't a beatle book, but it compiled the data and stats for the known dates and times of the band appearrances in hamburg, liverpool, & elsewhere in UK. By the number of hours, Pete's time on stage with JPG far surpassed Ringo's time.

In reply to Jane, yes Haymans Green is a great CD. I've gave it to some freinds without saying who the band was. they loved the whoile CD...and lved it even more, and listened closer to lyrics and evrything when i told them it was biographical and recorded by PBB. Several tracks have made it into regular rotation on beatlesradio.com, and they'lll also play tracks on request.

I'm not sure. I d/loaded it for a prelisten . But it sounds like the band really wanted to sound like a mixture of Crowded House, The Beatles and Klaatu. It's not something special, tho I must admit I was surprised that the production sounded good. It's been well taken care of.

I'm not sure. I d/loaded it for a prelisten . But it sounds like the band really wanted to sound like a mixture of Crowded House, The Beatles and Klaatu. It's not something special, tho I must admit I was surprised that the production sounded good. It's been well taken care of.

bobber: it's human nature to consider "what does the music sound like or remind me of?", however, make note that each track is either autobiographical (re: lyrics by pete) or biographical, which makes the HG CD wholly unique, especially for beatles fans: "Come with me", is an invitation to the Casbah Coffee Club, "Red Light" about the beatles' colorful early days in the red light district in Hamburg, "Gone", about the people / places of that time period with some lyrics about Paul/pete getting arrested etc. Personally, i like "Step Outside" and how it builds to a crescendo. cool lyrics toom which most people everyone can relate to at some point in their lives. The rockers really do rock here. Take a look at the reviews on amazon.com. it's 4-5 stars from all over.

Slide the headphones on, and listen to the lyrics, the stories being told in each song the whole CD is really a tribute to that early history of the beatles, and pb's appreciation for being a part of it all.

you've already noted the production quality. take a look at the lyrical quality.

Thats a good read and the theory probably was right. Who knows? I've heard a bunch of different ones and it gets tiresome after awhile.

Same here ,as i've seen authors mention not "theories" but outright "facts" which were really just often repeated myths, and it gets tiring to see a new "truth" (usually unsupported) mentioned in each new book...however, most of the books just repeat the pop culture hearsay, and the fiction that's been blindly accepted: haircut, personality, jealousy, personal popularity, not a good drummer, missed shows, etc etc., However, none of those shallow reasons would explain why the whole thing would be such a dark secret for decades, especially when George Martin thought PB was the most marketable of all of them (BUT, GM wasn't going to use PB on the record). THAT was when the ax fell swiftly.

Spit'z book a few years back mentions them going to fetch Ringo for the 25 pounds/week, but stops there. (look up what all 4 were getting pre-sack.). Peter Brown probably knew, but chose to dance around it in his book, prolonging the "mystery". In retrosepct, when the band became super successful and wealthy, it would make them all look very petty and nasty if it came out that they discharged PB because they wanted his $ share of the record contract, espcially when you look at the whole "all you need is love" mantra and "peace, love". If bedford's theory is the closest to truth, it would explain why no one has ever wanted to talk about it.

FYI for the baord..i tried to hook up pc31 to meet PB in person in florida in early October but timing didn't work out. NExt time maybe.

I don't know. I'm not disputing any facts but the thinking seems a bit circular and complicated: PB was a "full share" Beatle. He's not considered good enough for studio work. He is fired. Ringo is hired "part share." Therefore PB was fired because of the money. It requires collusion and a long silence worthy of JFK.

Could it not just be that PB was fired (for whatever reason) and the band simply were reluctant to pay a new member full share until he proved his worth? He was after all on probation. Or saw a chance to save a few bucks? That doesn't mean PB was fired because of the money issue. E=MC2. The simplest answers are often the best.